Why do fundamentalists believe the world is 6000-10000 years old?

[AlbertBall]

How do you know - did some one tell you or did you read it in another book and accepted it hook,line and sinker - sounded more reliable than God - twinc

Reading it in book has very little to do with it. I am a student of science, i understand the method, and peer review. 4.54 billion years is not some wild guess, it the age that all there various scientific disciplines support. Funny that isn’t it, how all the independent evidence form total unrelated branches of science point to the exact same date, i wonder why? The best of it all is, given the appropriate time and knowledge i could repeat the exact experiments.

There is no debate, the earth is around 4.54 billion years old. Now you can either accept the overwhelming evidence or you can deny it, but if you deny it don’t expect to be taken seriously within academic circles.

 

[buffalo]

More strictly, as Christians it behoves you to accept the correct interpretation of the word of God. There are many different interpretations available from many different types of Christian. Not all of those interpretations are correct.

Obviously for Catholics, the Church’s interpretation is authoritative. In the current case the Catholic Church allows either the 6,000 year interpretation or the 13.7 billion year old universe.

You would also do well to bear in mind the words of Saint Thomas Aquinas:“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.” - SummaIf you insist on the 6,000 year old world interpretation then you will place obstacles to my believing.

rossum

That is only part of the story.

 

[rossum]

Perhaps you could tell us why you believe the world is older Rossum?

Understand though I am not insisting the world is only 10000 or less years it just seems the most likely age to me.

I accept the scientific evidence for the age of the universe and the age of the earth. The correct word is “accept” rather than “believe”, because there is evidence.

There are multiple strands of evidence from independent sources for a universe about 13.7 billion years old. There are multiple strands of evidence from independent sources for an earth about 4.5 billion years old. There is even more evidence for an earth and universe over 10,000 years old. See 13,000 year old tree for just one recent example.

If you believe that God made the universe, then the evidence of that universe is just as much from God as is the book God wrote. God’s world is just as reliable as God’s word. Unless you believe that God is deceptive then the evidence from God’s universe indicates that it is a lot older than 10,000 years.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

I accept the scientific evidence for the age of the universe and the age of the earth. The correct word is “accept” rather than “believe”, because there is evidence.

There are multiple strands of evidence from independent sources for a universe about 13.7 billion years old. There are multiple strands of evidence from independent sources for an earth about 4.5 billion years old. There is even more evidence for an earth and universe over 10,000 years old. See 13,000 year old tree for just one recent example.

If you believe that God made the universe, then the evidence of that universe is just as much from God as is the book God wrote. God’s world is just as reliable as God’s word. Unless you believe that God is deceptive then the evidence from God’s universe indicates that it is a lot older than 10,000 years.

rossum

I don’t get it- you are telling us what we should believe, but you are not Catholic, so how do you know? . What does the buddha say?

 

[rossum]

I don’t get it- you are telling us what we should believe, but you are not Catholic, so how do you know?

I am advising that Catholics follow what is allowed by the Church and accept the scientific consensus.

What does the buddha say?

The question of the age of the universe is irrelevant to the task of religion:[The Buddha said:] ‘The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here] Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.’

(Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63)

rossum

 

[AlbertBall]

If you believe that God made the universe, then the evidence of that universe is just as much from God as is the book God wrote. God’s world is just as reliable as God’s word. Unless you believe that God is deceptive then the evidence from God’s universe indicates that it is a lot older than 10,000 years.

rossum

An excellent point, and you are in good company…

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.” - Galileo Galilei

“I’m a roman catholic, I’m a theist. In the broadest sense i would say i believe in a designer, but you know what? I don’t believe in a deceptive one! I do not believe in one who did do this to try to fool us…” - Dr Ken Miller

both roman catholics by the way.

 

[edwest2]

I am advising that Catholics follow what is allowed by the Church and accept the scientific consensus.

The question of the age of the universe is irrelevant to the task of religion:[The Buddha said:] ‘The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here] Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.’

(Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63)

rossum

I think the scientific concensus is incorrect about the age of the earth. The Church has declared that the universe is of a finite age.

Merry Christmas to all.

Peace,
Ed

 

[JDaniel]

I accept the scientific evidence for the age of the universe and the age of the earth. The correct word is “accept” rather than “believe”, because there is evidence.

There are multiple strands of evidence from independent sources for a universe about 13.7 billion years old. There are multiple strands of evidence from independent sources for an earth about 4.5 billion years old. There is even more evidence for an earth and universe over 10,000 years old. See 13,000 year old tree for just one recent example.

If you believe that God made the universe, then the evidence of that universe is just as much from God as is the book God wrote. God’s world is just as reliable as God’s word. Unless you believe that God is deceptive then the evidence from God’s universe indicates that it is a lot older than 10,000 years.

rossum

Rossum is correct, in my opinion. I am a Catholic. I am a religionist. Everyone on CAF knows these things about me. But, I work with fossils. I have been to where the layers of earth have been dug up. I have used a hammer and a chisel. I have separated the layers and found extinct creatures, particularly fish. I know those layers are much, much older than 10,000 years. If we wouldn’t try so hard to work the earth into our own peculiar schemes of things, we wouldn’t have this problem.

Merry Christmas and God bless,

jd

 

[Cristian_B]

For the problem of the age of Earth (according to the Bible) and the dinosaurs. The Bible says nothing about how much time Adam & Eve spent in heaven. They were immortal (but the other animals weren’t) and if, for example, they were created 8 million years ago (along with dinosaurs and such) Adam & Eve lived but the dinosaurs died and became fossils. And then 7.9 million years later they would eat the forbidden fruit.

Anyway, I can’t say whether this is true or not, since it is just a theory I came up right now.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

Its no good just saying there is multiple evidence to show the world is millions of years old, what is the evidence?!

And Gods world can be misinterpreted just as much as Gods word is.

 

[rossum]

Its no good just saying there is multiple evidence to show the world is millions of years old, what is the evidence?!

Start with Scientific Age of the Earth. That article contains plenty of references to follow up.

And Gods world can be misinterpreted just as much as Gods word is.

Agreed. However, you will note that there is generally less disagreement among scientists than there is among theologians about what God is trying to tell us.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

An excellent point, and you are in good company…

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.” - Galileo Galilei

“I’m a roman catholic, I’m a theist. In the broadest sense i would say i believe in a designer, but you know what? I don’t believe in a deceptive one! I do not believe in one who did do this to try to fool us…” - Dr Ken Miller

both roman catholics by the way.

No Catholic believes God is deceptive.

If one is walking on the beach and sees a left footprint as far as one can see what should they conclude? A deceiver was at work?

 

[SunnaB16]

As already stated by an earlier poster, the Church does not require us to believe that the
universe is 13.7 billion years old, nor does She require us to believe that it is 6000 or 10000
years old. The Bible is not a science textbook. God is outside of space and time - after all,
He is its creator, so time is nothing to Him. As long as we accept that God is the Creator of the whole thing, the age bit doesnt matter. So no one should be branded a heretic or what-
ever because of his age beliefs.

I`ll go along with the 10000 year maximum age of the human race, though.

13.7 billion years is still finite…

I`ve been asked: “How do they (that deadly word “they”) know how far away the sun is?”,
and “How do they know how far away the sun is from Mars?” etc. The knowledge has
come from centuries of observation and experiments and blood, sweat and cursing.
Any branch of TRUE science is the same, including geology. The knowledge has been
hard won.

 

[AlbertBall]

No Catholic believes God is deceptive.

If one is walking on the beach and sees a left footprint as far as one can see what should they conclude? A deceiver was at work?

Heuristics???

 

[AlbertBall]

I`ve been asked: “How do they (that deadly word “they”) know how far away the sun is?”,
and “How do they know how far away the sun is from Mars?” etc. The knowledge has
come from centuries of observation and experiments and blood, sweat and cursing.
Any branch of TRUE science is the same, including geology. The knowledge has been
hard won.

“I`ll go along with the 10000 year maximum age of the human race, though.”

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

I want YOU to explain it to me Rossum so that I can see why YOU believe it and see what YOU understand.

There is plenty of disagreement among scientists about lots of things it is just that unlike theology those who wield power in the scientific world are very dogmatic and very good at suppressing dissenting views.

 

[AlbertBall]

I want YOU to explain it to me Rossum so that I can see why YOU believe it and see what YOU understand.

There is plenty of disagreement among scientists about lots of things it is just that unlike theology those who wield power in the scientific world are very dogmatic and very good at suppressing dissenting views.

This is just nonsense. What science does do is completely dismisses unsupported views and unfounded claims. However it is differing views that drive science, differing view points are the very essence of science.

Be under no illusions though, if you are going to present your views in the academic arena, you better make sure they are strongly supported by empirical evidence. For if they are not, be prepared to have them slaughtered along with your academic credibility!

 

[rossum]

I want YOU to explain it to me Rossum so that I can see why YOU believe it and see what YOU understand.

At the bottom of Lake Suigetsu there are over 100,000 layers which look like varves, annual layers. When checking the dates of there layers with carbon dating the numbers came out the same from the layer counts and from the carbon dating. This gives independent confirmation of the dating of the layers.

At the bottom of Lake Baikal there are over a million layers. As far as we have been able to check the dates from the layer counts match with the dates from carbon dating.

In the Greenland icecap there are 100,000 layers of ice. Carbon dating has confirmed that these layers are annual. Oxygen isotopes trapped in the ice have confirmed climate data available from elsewhere for ambient temperatures. This is a three-way independent confirmation.

Corals show both daily and annual growth rings. The dating of these rings has been confirmed by looking at solar cycles - they go back well beyond 6,000 years.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence to show that the earth is a mere 10,000 years old. We have multiple sources of evidence that the earth is a lot older than 10,000 years.

We have rocks from Greenland radio-dated to around 4 billion years old. We have meteorites dated to older than that. We have astronomical observations to indicate that the Sun and the solar system is about 4.5 billion years old.

When there is multiple independent confirmation then I am prepared to accept the science.

There is plenty of disagreement among scientists about lots of things it is just that unlike theology those who wield power in the scientific world are very dogmatic and very good at suppressing dissenting views.

There is very little disagreement among scientists about the age of the earth and the age of the universe. What little disagreement there is might be between 13.65 billion years and 13.7 billion years. A young earth was rejected by science at the beginning of the nineteenth century with the development of geology. A young earth is scientifically laughable.

rossum

 

[twinc]

At the bottom of Lake Suigetsu there are over 100,000 layers which look like varves, annual layers. When checking the dates of there layers with carbon dating the numbers came out the same from the layer counts and from the carbon dating. This gives independent confirmation of the dating of the layers.

At the bottom of Lake Baikal there are over a million layers. As far as we have been able to check the dates from the layer counts match with the dates from carbon dating.

In the Greenland icecap there are 100,000 layers of ice. Carbon dating has confirmed that these layers are annual. Oxygen isotopes trapped in the ice have confirmed climate data available from elsewhere for ambient temperatures. This is a three-way independent confirmation.

Corals show both daily and annual growth rings. The dating of these rings has been confirmed by looking at solar cycles - they go back well beyond 6,000 years.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence to show that the earth is a mere 10,000 years old. We have multiple sources of evidence that the earth is a lot older than 10,000 years.

We have rocks from Greenland radio-dated to around 4 billion years old. We have meteorites dated to older than that. We have astronomical observations to indicate that the Sun and the solar system is about 4.5 billion years old.

When there is multiple independent confirmation then I am prepared to accept the science.

There is very little disagreement among scientists about the age of the earth and the age of the universe. What little disagreement there is might be between 13.65 billion years and 13.7 billion years. A young earth was rejected by science at the beginning of the nineteenth century with the development of geology. A young earth is scientifically laughable.

rossum

phony science says old,whilst updated real/true science says young - twinc

 

[LindaSK]

I am advising that Catholics follow what is allowed by the Church and accept the scientific consensus.

The question of the age of the universe is irrelevant to the task of religion:[The Buddha said:] ‘The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here] Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.’

(Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63)

rossum

The question of the age of the universe is irrelevant to the task of religion

This is a point I think both sides can agree upon.

Just as we, as individuals, may be the only ‘Bible’ some will ever read, the Earth is a ‘book’ with as many mysteries as God Himself. God gave man the ability to reason in an effort to understand the many complicities of our Earth, to attempt, as it were, to ‘read’ the hidden messages beneath its surface and beyond its sky. In this regard, I am willing to accept the vast scientific evidence that supports the age of the Earth to be be between 13.65 billion years and 13.7 billion years old.

I am still somewhat sleep deprived, but I hope there was something rational to my above thoughts!

Merry Christmas!
Peace, good will…